## Facts

- John Dioguardi, proceeding pro se, sought to import bottles of tonics or medicinal extracts from Italy through the Port of New York.
- The merchandise came into the custody of the Collector of Customs and was held for about a year, apparently as unclaimed goods.
- Dioguardi alleged that, three weeks before a customs sale, two cases of the merchandise (19 bottles per case) disappeared while in government custody.
- The collector sold the remaining goods at a public customs auction on October 9, 1940.
- Dioguardi alleged the collector sold the goods to another bidder at Dioguardi’s lower bid ($110) rather than at a higher bid ($120), causing him loss.
- Dioguardi sought $5,000 in damages (plus interest and costs) against the collector both individually and in his official capacity.

## Issues

1. Whether a complaint may be dismissed for failing to plead “facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action,” or whether it is enough under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) to give a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief.
2. Whether Dioguardi’s inartfully drafted allegations gave adequate notice of claims for loss and mishandling of his merchandise to survive a motion to dismiss.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit reversed the judgment dismissing the amended complaint and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held that, read liberally, the complaint alleged concrete misconduct (loss of goods in custody and improper disposition at auction) and resulting damages.
- The court concluded that dismissal at the pleading stage was improper because the allegations, if proved, could support some form of legal relief.
- The court noted that disputes about the merits could be addressed through later procedures rather than by strict insistence on technical pleading.

## Legal Principles

- Under Rule 8(a), a complaint need only contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.
- Federal pleading does not require detailed factual pleading in the older code-pleading form of “facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.”
- A confusing or poorly drafted complaint should not be dismissed if it provides fair notice of the nature of the claim and suggests an actionable wrong.
- Motions directed at the merits (including narrowing issues or testing evidentiary support) are generally handled through later procedural mechanisms rather than by early dismissal when a claim can be discerned.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit held that Dioguardi’s pro se, inartful complaint satisfied Rule 8(a) because it gave notice of alleged loss and mishandling of property by customs officials that could entitle him to relief, and it therefore reversed the dismissal and remanded.


Dioguardi v. Durning, 139 F.2d 774 (2d Cir. 1944)